↓ Skip to main content

Within-group male relatedness reduces harm to females in Drosophila

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
twitter
80 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Within-group male relatedness reduces harm to females in Drosophila
Published in
Nature, January 2014
DOI 10.1038/nature12949
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pau Carazo, Cedric K. W. Tan, Felicity Allen, Stuart Wigby, Tommaso Pizzari

Abstract

To resolve the mechanisms that switch competition to cooperation is key to understanding biological organization. This is particularly relevant for intrasexual competition, which often leads to males harming females. Recent theory proposes that kin selection may modulate female harm by relaxing competition among male relatives. Here we experimentally manipulate the relatedness of groups of male Drosophila melanogaster competing over females to demonstrate that, as expected, within-group relatedness inhibits male competition and female harm. Females exposed to groups of three brothers unrelated to the female had higher lifetime reproductive success and slower reproductive ageing compared to females exposed to groups of three males unrelated to each other. Triplets of brothers also fought less with each other, courted females less intensively and lived longer than triplets of unrelated males. However, associations among brothers may be vulnerable to invasion by minorities of unrelated males: when two brothers were matched with an unrelated male, the unrelated male sired on average twice as many offspring as either brother. These results demonstrate that relatedness can profoundly affect fitness through its modulation of intrasexual competition, as flies plastically adjust sexual behaviour in a manner consistent with kin-selection theory.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 3 3%
Brazil 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Senegal 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 82 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 39%
Researcher 24 25%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 8 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 78 82%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 5 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 151. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2016.
All research outputs
#44,995
of 7,912,542 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#5,766
of 46,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,210
of 187,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#199
of 878 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,912,542 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 46,692 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 187,992 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 878 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.